Bad cd records; is back to vinyl the solution?

[BigH]

Agree, but on CD there is too much compression. On vinyl this isn't possible. That's why the same record always sounds better on vinyl.

Just seen this comment. About vinyl that is simply not true, most vinyl is compressed so they can fit it on the LP, that is why there are some special LPs that are cut instead of 1 lp they are now over 2 lps, so they can have more DR, wider space between the grooves, more bass etc. I suggest you read about how they cut vinyl, its quite an insight. If I can find the article I will link it here. ALso dont think that vinyl has no digital processes, 99% or more of vinyl has some digital processing now.

Found this: http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-factory-releases/how-to-master-a-record-noel-summerville-vinyl-dubplates-the-clash/

 

[Deleted member 108165]

Double post

 

[Deleted member 108165]

Agree, but on CD there is too much compression. On vinyl this isn't possible. That's why the same record always sounds better on vinyl.

Just seen this comment. About vinyl that is simply not true, most vinyl is compressed so they can fit it on the LP, that is why there are some special LPs that are cut instead of 1 lp they are now over 2 lps, so they can have more DR, wider space between the grooves, more bass etc. I suggest you read about how they cut vinyl, its quite an insight. If I can find the article I will link it here. ALso dont think that vinyl has no digital processes, 99% or more of vinyl has some digital processing now.

Found this: http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-factory-releases/how-to-master-a-re...

Yep, we've been told off for this already and seen the error of our ways

. Thanks for the link, very interesting.

 

[peterpan]

Are these better? And how much db ist the best?

http://www.ekmpowershop16.com/ekmps/shops/rothwellaudio/in-line-attenuators-2-p.asp

 

[davedotco]

Are these better? And how much db ist the best?

http://www.ekmpowershop16.com/ekmps/shops/rothwellaudio/in-line-attenuat...

The Rothwells are the best known and are a quality product though at £40 pr, they should be.

If there is anyway you can test the effect of these devices before parting with any cash I would do so.

We do not know if overload is a big issue in your setup, specs suggest it might be, but we don't know. You musical preference might be an issue too.

If you can get a -20dB set to try without commitment, do so.

 

[peterpan]

I think i will go for the -20b version. But is see Rothwell has also source attenuiators. What is better?

 

[Vladimir]

I think i will go for the -20b version. But is see Rothwell has also source attenuiators. What is better?

The source attenuators plug in the CD instead of the amp with same effect, you just save space behind the amp if this is needed. The source attenuators are made mostly for Naim users and your amplifier is Exposure so just stick with the normal -20dB inline attenuator.

Report back if you got the Rothwells and you percieved any changes in sound quality.

 

[Captain Sensible]

It could be a solution. But it will depend about your tastes, because vinyl has a more unpure sound, that is definitely something other than the completely dry and clean sounding CD. Although, you will loose dynamic, because vinyl has a lower dynamic capacity. And it's a mechanical nightmare (having the right cartidge, on the right tonearm with a decent turntable... and then you have the dust problem...). This all will be costly to be putted in place and set correctly (time AND money)

BUT...

Vinyl although have loudness war going on in this moment because you know, "producers." So, Yes, on the old material this wasn't, but you must find good conserved vinyls, what is not always possible and they won't be cheap. And let's not forget, bad mastering was although possible in the old times. So, sometimes, your record can be in good shape, but the quality can be bad.

BUT...Some things existed only on vinyls. So, some recorded stuff from X or Y musician can only be found on this support.

What is better ? Your taste and priorities will decide it.

'dynamic, because vinyl has a lower dynamic capacity'

In general I would agree with the dynamic sound of vinyl to digital, have owned a few different makes of vinyl LP12 – Michell but what really took me by surprise is my current SME deck which has a sound stage to match the dynamics of digital. Have played tracks from the streamer then switched over to the SME where there is no drop in dynamics.The Michel was a warmer sounding turntable however the SME does not add much tone but then you are getting all the finer detail of the recording over michell. The SME is a truly wonderful deck would love to see What hifi do a review.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

But believe physics... it is.

Quote : Wikipedia

The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback

The "as good as" dynamic probably comes from the specific mastering of the pieces you are compairing.

 

[BigH]

But believe physics... it is.

Quote : Wikipedia

The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback

The "as good as" dynamic probably comes from the specific mastering of the pieces you are compairing.

yes that is correct but the problem lately is the mastering of CDs, if you look on dr database many have a Dr of less than 5, many vinyl have a higher Dr than the cd equilovent. Not sure if high res, releases will solve this problem, time will tell.

 

[davedotco]

But believe physics... it is.

Quote : Wikipedia

The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback

The "as good as" dynamic probably comes from the specific mastering of the pieces you are compairing.

yes that is correct but the problem lately is the mastering of CDs, if you look on dr database many have a Dr of less than 5, many vinyl have a higher Dr than the cd equilovent. Not sure if high res, releases will solve this problem, time will tell.

Be aware that the DR figure given in this database is not the actual dynamic range but an arbitary rating on a scale of 1 - 20, though higher ratings are theoretically possible.

Given the sensible limits for dynamic range in the home, ambient noise to maximum required loudness, both vinyl and digital should be able to fulfill those reqirements. When we consider even the most dynamic of commercial recordings can easily be reproduced by either media it is clear that any failings in the quality of the reproduction lie elsewhere.

 

[Overdose]

Some on here seem to believe that greater dynamic range is always better. It is not. Along with it, usually comes an increased noise floor.

I'd take a modern clean recording with reasonable compression over an noiser older one with greater DR every time.

DDC, I'm not entirley sure about the arbitrary DR between 1 and 20, the max DR in the list is 36 for example.

Having looked at the figures it seems likely (though not definite) that the figure in the left of the column is the overall DR of the album, the mean average if you like. The next is the minimum across all tracks and the last, the greatest measured DR. Whether or not the DR is a min peak to max peak measurement or RMS to max peak is another matter.

 

[davedotco]

Some on here seem to believe that greater dynamic range is always better. It is not. Along with it, usually comes an increased noise floor.

I'd take a modern clean recording with reasonable compression over an noiser older one with greater DR every time.

DDC, I'm not entirley sure about the arbitrary DR between 1 and 20, the max DR in the list is 36 for example.

Having looked at the figures it seems likely (though not definite) that the figure in the left of the column is the overall DR of the album, the mean average if you like. The next is the minimum across all tracks and the last, the greatest measured DR. Whether or not the DR is a min peak to max peak measurement or RMS to max peak is another matter.

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

It is my understanding that the Foobar add on measures the difference from average to peak levels and assigns a DR rating from that data. There is no suggestion that it attempts to measure the actual peak to peak dynamic range, again if you have any information that clarifies this, it would be helpful.

For the moment I consider this database to be of comparitive use only though I would love to have a greater understanding of exactly what is actually on a disc, in terms of dynamic range anyway.

 

[BigH]

Some on here seem to believe that greater dynamic range is always better. It is not. Along with it, usually comes an increased noise floor.

I'd take a modern clean recording with reasonable compression over an noiser older one with greater DR every time.

DDC, I'm not entirley sure about the arbitrary DR between 1 and 20, the max DR in the list is 36 for example.

Having looked at the figures it seems likely (though not definite) that the figure in the left of the column is the overall DR of the album, the mean average if you like. The next is the minimum across all tracks and the last, the greatest measured DR. Whether or not the DR is a min peak to max peak measurement or RMS to max peak is another matter.

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

It is my understanding that the Foobar add on measures the difference from average to peak levels and assigns a DR rating from that data. There is no suggestion that it attempts to measure the actual peak to peak dynamic range, again if you have any information that clarifies this, it would be helpful.

For the moment I consider this database to be of comparitive use only though I would love to have a greater understanding of exactly what is actually on a disc, in terms of dynamic range anyway.

over 20 must be excellent. It seems the Dr readings are average readings not peak?There is also some discussion on the Hoffman forum about the accuracy of the vinyl figures, it seems on the same master the vinyl figures are higher, maybe it's the surface noise?

 

[davedotco]

Some on here seem to believe that greater dynamic range is always better. It is not. Along with it, usually comes an increased noise floor.

I'd take a modern clean recording with reasonable compression over an noiser older one with greater DR every time.

DDC, I'm not entirley sure about the arbitrary DR between 1 and 20, the max DR in the list is 36 for example.

Having looked at the figures it seems likely (though not definite) that the figure in the left of the column is the overall DR of the album, the mean average if you like. The next is the minimum across all tracks and the last, the greatest measured DR. Whether or not the DR is a min peak to max peak measurement or RMS to max peak is another matter.

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

It is my understanding that the Foobar add on measures the difference from average to peak levels and assigns a DR rating from that data. There is no suggestion that it attempts to measure the actual peak to peak dynamic range, again if you have any information that clarifies this, it would be helpful.

For the moment I consider this database to be of comparitive use only though I would love to have a greater understanding of exactly what is actually on a disc, in terms of dynamic range anyway.

over 20 must be excellent. It seems the Dr readings are average readings not peak?There is also some discussion on the Hoffman forum about the accuracy of the vinyl figures, it seems on the same master the vinyl figures are higher, maybe it's the surface noise?

As I have said, there is a lot about this Database that is not clear.

As a comparative tool I find it very interesting and useful, just do not confuse the DR ratings with actual dynamic range.

 

[Overdose]

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

We may be looking at different things, websites even, but have a look at THIS.

You can select order of DR measurements in the tables, ascending or descending.

The range scale at the top is just an indicator I believe.

 

[davedotco]

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

We may be looking at different things, websites even, but have a look at THIS.

You can select order of DR measurements in the tables, ascending or descending.

The range scale at the top is just an indicator I believe.

Interesting, Thank you.

One of the few albums at the top of that list that I am familier with is Copperhead Road, certainly does not sound that exceptional, wierd eh?

 

[Overdose]

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

We may be looking at different things, websites even, but have a look at THIS.

You can select order of DR measurements in the tables, ascending or descending.

The range scale at the top is just an indicator I believe.

Interesting, Thank you.

One of the few albums at the top of that list that I am familier with is Copperhead Road, certainly does not sound that exceptional, wierd eh?

Depends on the release. Check in the search box for the album and you may find several versions at different release years.

 

[davedotco]

There definitely is a lack of clarity in this issue.

The database I see most is calibrated 1-7 Bad, 6-13 Intermediate and 14-20 good. There is no obvious provision for a DR score in excess of 20. If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

We may be looking at different things, websites even, but have a look at THIS.

You can select order of DR measurements in the tables, ascending or descending.

The range scale at the top is just an indicator I believe.

Interesting, Thank you.

One of the few albums at the top of that list that I am familier with is Copperhead Road, certainly does not sound that exceptional, wierd eh?

Depends on the release. Check in the search box for the album and you may find several versions at different release years.

Even more interesting. Take a look at this...

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/57548

The comment section gives you an analysis of the peak to RMS range. So would the peak to minimum be double that, maybe not but greater surely.

 

[Vladimir]

Please enjoy the names of the bands in this list ordering.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-max

 

[BigH]

Please enjoy the names of the bands in this list ordering.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-max

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc

 

[BigH]

Came across this video which maybe of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AE9dL5FG8

 

[BigH]

Came across this video which maybe of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AE9dL5FG8

 

[BigH]

Why do I get the spam filter all the time now?

Why dont links come out unless you quote them as above?

 

[BigH]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AE9dL5FG8

i see

This f....... spam filter is getting on my ti.s